Evolution is Just Junk Science

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 7:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> If a Christian college refused to grant a biology professor tenure since

> he was an advocate of evolution--would the college have that right?

Parents also have the right not to send their children to such

institutions.

Martin

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 7:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180909764.150176.122...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On 4 Jun., 01:13, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <0kF8i.13105$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,

>

> > > b...@nonespam.com wrote:

> > > > Jason wrote:

> > > > > In article <f3ueed$8qe$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

>

> > > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > > >>> In article <f3t24v$7mv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> > > > >>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

>

> > > > >>>> Jason wrote:

> > > > >>>>> In article <4661add3.268...@news.east.earthlink.net>,

> > > > >>>>> lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:

>

> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:48:06 -0700, bramble

> > > > >>>>>> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > > > >>>>>>> On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > >>>>>>>> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>

> > > > >>>>>>>> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory wa=

> > s a

> > > > >>>>>>>> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read

> > > the last

> > > > >>>>>>>> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excelle=

> > nt

> > > > >>>>>>>> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "c=

> > reator"

> > > > >>>>>>>> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin th=

> > an I

> > > > >>> am with

> > > > >>>>>>>> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one

> > > celled life

> > > > >>>>>>>> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read

> > > the last

> > > > >>>>>>>> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the p=

> > oint

> > > > >>> that he

> > > > >>>>>>>> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence:

> > > > >>>>>>>> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO

> > > ONE." That

> > > > >>>>>>>> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people.

> > > That is

> > > > >>>>>>>> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one

> > > > > celled life

> > > > >>>>>>>> form.

> > > > >>>>>>>> Jason

> > > > >>>>>>> Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had =

> > to

> > > > >>>>>>> tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he =

> > let in

> > > > >>>>>>> his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time i=

> > n which

> > > > >>>>>>> there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a h=

> > undred

> > > > >>>>>>> years earlier, he could not have dared to write this book. So =

> > in

> > > > > spite of

> > > > >>>>>>> being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to be=

> > have as

> > > > >>>>>>> any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on

> > > > >>>>>>> sundays.

> > > > >>>>>> There is a myth propagated by the extreme 'creationist' facti=

> > on

> > > > >>>>>> that it's impossible to be both "religious" and an "evolution=

> > ist".

> > > > >>>>>> Very likely Darwin -was- religious, his culture was saturated

> > > > >>>>>> with religious ideas and perspectives. It would have been very

> > > > >>>>>> unusual for him -not- to have been religious in some way.

>

> > > > >>>>>> But he couldn't have been a strict "CHRISTIAN". His studies

> > > > >>>>>> showed that the proposed scheme of creation in the christian

> > > > >>>>>> bible was flat wrong. No "Zap ! There's an elephant, Zap !

> > > > >>>>>> There's a chicken". A long and winding road instead.

>

> > > > >>>>>> So Darwin had to be something other than a strict "christian".

> > > > >>>>>> A "bad christian" perhaps, a deist maybe. What he had learned

> > > > >>>>>> was incompatible with christian dogma, but not with the idea

> > > > >>>>>> of -some- kind of god-entity kick-starting life on earth.

>

> > > > >>>>>> The kind of reason & evidence-based thinking that Darwin help=

> > ed

> > > > >>>>>> along eventually spawned a crop of unbelievers, but AT THE TI=

> > ME

> > > > >>>>>> and given the cultural environment true athiests were few and

> > > > >>>>>> far between (and they usually didn't advertise themselves).

>

> > > > >>>>>> As for the thread title, yes, there may be an "alternative"

> > > > >>>>>> to evolution. Alas it would have to involve aliens or 'gods'

> > > > >>>>>> constantly bringing new forms of life to earth over a very

> > > > >>>>>> long period. The 'intermediate forms' not being 'intermediate'

> > > > >>>>>> but simply genetically-engineered lifeforms that didn't adapt

> > > > >>>>>> well, thus requiring a series of "improved" versions to be

> > > > >>>>>> constructed.

>

> > > > >>>>>> That scenerio, while not impossible, seems -extremely- unlike=

> > ly.

> > > > >>>>>> If there are aliens involved, more likely an alien stopped-off

> > > > >>>>>> here to take a crap and some of its bacteria managed to survi=

> > ve,

> > > > >>>>>> and subsequently evolve. There would be a certain poetic just=

> > ice

> > > > >>>>>> in discovering that egomaniacal humans were spawned from a

> > > > >>>>>> floater left by some grey-skinned alien :-)

> > > > >>>>> The problem is that evolutionists now have total control and will=

> > not

> > > > >>>>> allow any alternative theories to be taught in the public school =

> > system.

> > > > >>>> If it's a valid theory, no problem. We explained at length what a =

> > valid

> > > > >>>> scientific theory must be. Which criteria it must fulfill. ID simp=

> > ly and

> > > > >>>> plainly fails said criterias.

>

> > > > >>>>> They don't even like it when college professors teach college stu=

> > dents

> > > > >>>>> about creation science.

> > > > >>>> See above.

>

> > > > >>>> Many years ago, there was a famous movie about the

> > > > >>>>> Scopes Monkey Trial. I saw that movie. The Christians were accused

> > > of not

> > > > >>>>> allowing a teacher to teach students about evoluton. That has all

> > > changed.

> > > > >>>>> The evolutionists are now in control and will not allow

> > > intelligent design

> > > > >>>>> to be taught in the public schools system.

> > > > >>>> NOT in SCIENCE CLASS! It FAILS all criteria. So it is not science!=

> > Teach

> > > > >>>> it all you like. Around here the class is termed "Religion" (prono=

> > unce

> > > > >>>> it german). Or "Ethik". (It IS taught, just not in science class.)

>

> > > > >>>> The evolutionists are the new

> > > > >>>>> fascist.

> > > > >>>> lol

>

> > > > >>>> Several days ago, I read about a college professor that was an

> > > > >>>>> advocate of creation science. He was denied tenure (spelling??).

> > > > >>>> That depends what class he wanted to teach. If it was sociology, h=

> > e can

> > > > >>>> be my guest. If it was biology, he is out. Nor science. Simple, ac=

> > tually.

>

> > > > >>>> Of

> > > > >>>>> course, if he was an advocate of evolution, he would have been gr=

> > anted

> > > > >>>>> tenure.

> > > > >>>> Depends. If he wanted to teach sociology, What is his qualificatio=

> > n?

>

> > > > >>>> Tokay

> > > > >>> I was told he taught astronomy classes.

>

> > > > >> Also a field in which the so called "ID-nuts" don't especially do too

> > > > >> good. Astonomy includes how the universe began. He probably "argued"

> > > > >> that "goddidit". So no wonder. Also, if he is one of those buggers t=

> > hat

> > > > >> believes the universe and/or the earth is only 6000 years old, he ru=

> > ns

> > > > >> into tons of trouble.

> > > > >> So, no. He is out.

>

> > > > >> Tokay

>

> > > > > Tokay,

> > > > > He did not get tenure but is still a professor. If they fire him, he =

> > could

> > > > > get a job as a professor at a Christian college where they don't

> > > > > discriminate against the advocates of creation science. Discriminatio=

> > n is

> > > > > suppose to be illegal but I guess that some of the members of this

> > > > > newsgroup appear to believe that it's acceptable for public colleges =

> > to

> > > > > discriminate against professors that are advocates of creation scienc=

> > e by

> > > > > not granting them tenure. How would you feel if a Christian college

> > > > > refused to grant tenure to a biology professor since he was an advoca=

> > te of

> > > > > evolution?

>

> > > > First, it's their right. Second, it is exactly what I would expect. The

> > > > surprise would be that they hired him in the first place.

>

> > > If a Christian college refused to grant a biology professor tenure since

> > > he was an advocate of evolution--would the college have that right?- Skju=

> > l tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>

> > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>

> > Probably, but one would hope that the school would not be accredited,

> > since it obviously is not teaching what it pretends to be teaching,

> > i=2Ee. science.

>

> Do you think that a college should lose their accreditation if they teach

> course related to withcraft? Here is proof that at least one college

> teaches a course related to withcraft: (ignore the question marks)

>

> I googled witchcraft professors and found this:

>

> As a cultural studies major at Columbia, sophomore Erin Polley had always

> been interested in women's history, so after learning about an elective

> class in witchcraft, she decided to sign up.

>

> Witchcraft in Colonial America, a one credit, two-day class offered on a

> trial basis in March, examined witchcraft in 17th century America. The

> course explored religious beliefs and gender issues while attempting to

> establish an understanding for the culture of the society.

Teaching _about_ witchcraft is very different from teaching it to be

true. I was taught about mythology in elementary school. It's

important for young children to be told that not every story that is

written down is necessarily true.

Martin

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 7:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180909414.014982.158...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>

> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On 4 Jun., 01:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > Spell it out, explain how life can begin from non-life.

> > How could it not?

>

> You claim that it happened. Therefore, explain to me how it happened.

In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could

form

spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other

experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's

research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein

chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein

chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains

are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See

http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have

already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of

reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). RNA is

commonly believed to have existed before DNA, which then emerged much

later. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis ).

Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of

the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm

). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the

ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced

eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would

have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells.

Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral

eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis

) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host

prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory

) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a

result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and

plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only

difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of

the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive

independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts

have evolved to depend on the whole. (See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity ).

Martin

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 8:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <jvd6631jv27i1d1c4qter9cls9uifdh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:32:20 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > <Jason-0306071532210...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >In article <QBF8i.15473$JQ3.13...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> > ><mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> > >>news:Jason-0306071411580001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > >> > In article <615663l15ik3mdb5s0bm2rg636pnmqf...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> > >> > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>

> > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>

> > >> >> <...>

>

> > >> >> >I attended a Christian college for two years. One of the biology

> > >> >> >professors was a Christian and was an advocate of creation science. He

> > >> >> >taught evolution theory. He did not teach creation science to his

> > >> >> >students. He did have a special session each quarter where he

> taught the

> > >> >> >basics of creation science. None of his students were required to

> attend

> > >> >> >and none of the students that attended the special session were

> required

> > >> >> >to take tests. As far as I know, the other biology professors did not

> > >> >> >discriminate against him. I visited his office and had a conversation

> > >> >> >with

> > >> >> >him. He was not my biology professor. I doubt that he would have been

> > >> >> >allowed to teach the special creation science session if he had worked

> > >> >> >in

> > >> >> >a state university.

> > >> >> >Jason

>

> > >> >> Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has been the location of

> > >> >> a presentation by Duane Gish, presenting the case for scientific

> > >> >> creationism. "Gish is [or was] the vice president of the Institute for

> > >> >> Creation Research and was touted in fliers for the event as "one of

> > >> >> the world's leading experts on Scientific Creationism.""

>

> > >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

> > >> >>http://www.ftvc.org/news0900.html

>

> > >> > That is great news. I saw Dr. Gish debate a professor from the

> local state

> > >> > college. The auditorium was full of people. They advertised the debate in

> > >> > the ICR newsletter and at many of the churches. As a result, lots of

> > >> > Christians attended the debate.

> > >> > Jason

>

> > >> Ah yes, old "Bullfrog" Gish. Tell me Jason, do you think that real science

> > >> is done by public debate?

>

> > >No--it's a great method of helping people that attend the debates to

> > >understand the issues.

>

> > No it isn't, Gish and his ilk are telling lies and misleading people.

> > How does that help understanding? You are completely confused because

> > you believed his lies.

>

> > >Most of the people that attended Dr. Gish's debates

> > >are not involved in any science related fields or involved in scientific

> > >research.

>

> > That is why he was able to get away with so many lies.

>

> > >Dr. Gish has retired.

>

> > But the organization that he was part of is still telling lies and you

> > are still being misled by them.

>

> I don't believe they are telling lies.

You yourself have told lies: you said three weeks ago you would not

post here anymore and yet here you are; you continuously claim that

you've seen no evidence for evolutioon and abiogenesis and yet also

claim that you have looked at "a couple of the links" we have provided

you; and you've both told us that you would becoome an advocate of

evolution if it could be proved and yet also told us that you would

never "convert to believing in" evolution. If you can lie repeatedly

then why can't they? If we can't believe a word that you tell us then

why should you believe a word that they tell you? Don't they share

your Christian lack of morality?

Martin

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 8:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>

> > >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was

> > >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The

> > >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The

> > >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the

> > >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be

> > >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to develop a two

> > >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter from our

> > >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of

> > >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook did not

> > >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book.

>

> > But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation:

> > The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this?

>

> Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not

> Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence?

Because we can go to real science museums ourselves and see actual

fossils as opposed to seeing manikins of Adam and Eve at fake science

museums.

Martin

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 8:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's degree is not

> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or anyone else

> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M. Denton or

> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at the ICR

> college.

Cut and paste some of them here. Ah, wait, that's what you've been

doing.

> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from non-life.

So I have. And why do I still have to? Tell me that.

> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me something like this: We

> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise, there would

> not be living cells.

Well, duh. Whether you believe in any given theory of abiogenesis or

believe "God did it" we still start with non-life and end up with

life. The point is that abiogenesis is not what we are debating: we

are debating _how_ it occurred.

> That is not good enough since I could say: Yes, we have living cells but I

> believe that it's because God created living cells.

And you haven't supplied any evidence. We have supplied evidence.

You haven't.

> You will have to do better than that.

The onus is on you to provide better arguments than you've made so

far. Come back when you have some.

Martin

June 4, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <jlo663dvkb3nkf42orog8j2s3kfmjnriq6@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>>

>>> In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1cfjn@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:21:29 -0700, in alt.atheism

>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>> <Jason-0306071721290001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>>>> In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

>>>>> <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was

>>>>>>> revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The

>>>>>>> Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The

>>>>>>> Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the

>>>>>>> fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be

>>>>>>> easy for a professor to use that book and related books to

> develop a two

>>>>>>> hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter

> from our

>>>>>>> college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of

>>>>>>> Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook

> did not

>>>>>>> mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book.

>>>>>> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation:

>>>>>> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this?

>>>>> Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not

>>>>> Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence?

>>>>>

>>>> I've read enough of Gish's claims and know enough science to know that

>>>> Gish and the entire ICR are professional liars. You have admitted that

>>>> you are not well enough informed about science to know whether anything

>>>> they say is lying or telling the truth, yet you believe the liars rather

>>>> than the scientists.

>>> D.T. Gish has a Ph.D degree. He has as much credibility as anyone else

>>> that has a Ph.D degree.

>> The possession of a PhD degree by someone lends no credibility, in my

>> experience of them.

>

> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that

> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish.

>

De gustibus non desputandum est.

June 4, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <aao6639456a097rsoe5vgeic57t6nhn823@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:42:08 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-0306071842090001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>> In article <ONI8i.18085$px2.17076@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:Jason-0306071610140001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>>>>> In article <4sF8i.15341$JQ3.14436@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:Jason-0306071242230001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>>>>>>> In article <1180863203.738843.244120@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>>>>>>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 2 Jun., 03:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism

>>>>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>>>>>>>> <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>>>>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>>>>>> <1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

>>>>>>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> ...

>>>>>>>>>>>> Except those who are educated and are not idiots.

>>>>>>>>>>> Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they keep the

>>>>>>>>>>> apes

>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they

> kept the

>>>>>>>>>>> gori=

>>>>>>>> lla

>>>>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape or throw

>>>>>>>>>>> fecal

>>>>>>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created and

>>>>>>>>>>> designed

>>>>>>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so as not to

>>>>>>>>>>> confu=

>>>>>>>> se

>>>>>>>>>>> the advocates of evolution.

>>>>>>>>>>> Jason

>>>>>>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin?

>>>>>>>>> People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and gorillas use

>>>>>>>>> fire?-=

>>>>>>>> Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>>>>>>>>> - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

>>>>>>>> Does using fire mean that you are not related to other apes? No

>>>>>>>> Jason, it does not mean that. You zoo example was completely

>>>>>>>> meaningless.

>>>>>>> These are some of the differences:

>>>>>>> the use of fire

>>>>>>> burying the dead

>>>>>>> the ability to communicate by talking

>>>>>>> differences in DNA

>>>>>>> differences in IQ

>>>>>>> the ability to worship

>>>>>> Explain to me how chimps and humans share the same defect gene as

>>>>>> explained

>>>>>> here:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0500450102v1.pdf

>>>>> Sorry, I have never taken any classes related to genes or read any books

>>>>> or articles about genes.

>>>> Then you need to learn about the defective gene which we share with

>>>> chimpanzees that we both inherited from our common ancestor. Either

> that or

>>>> god was so incompetent that he gave us the same defect.

>>> I don't know enough about genes to make a comment.

>> Then why have you been so arrogantly dismissive of evolution?

>

> I agree with many aspects of evolution theory. The main area of

> disagreement is in relation to abiogenesis.

>

Abiogenesis, dear stupid child, is not part of evolutionary theory.

There are no scientific theories on the subject, and in any case they do

not apply to evolution because evolution applies only to living things.

You have been informed of this many times. I don't want to believe

that you are this utterly stupid or brainwashed. Please prove me wrong.

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 9:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

>

> <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>

> > >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> > ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>

> > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>

> > >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was

> > >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The

> > >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The

> > >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the

> > >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be

> > >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to develop a two

> > >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter from our

> > >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of

> > >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook did not

> > >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book.

>

> > >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation:

> > >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this?

>

> > >Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not

> > >Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence?

>

> > I am asserting that we need a book that presents solid fossil

> > evidence FOR creation. Because you are the defender of Gish's book,

> > you should be able to show this.

>

> Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295

> pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to

> read the books, here are the titles:

>

> "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

> "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish-

You are beeing asked to present evidence FOR creation. ANY evidence.

Are you admitting that the evidence does not exist?

Martin

June 4, 2007

In article <vlv663tuinre192cvl0isnt5b7gplje4vc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:46:42 -0700, in alt.atheism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-0306072046430001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <0lu663pg2iop4rbao2fl538a1c0rhnru3q@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:34:21 -0700, in alt.atheism

> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> <Jason-0306072034220001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >In article <9mt6635s170bthiq1e7nlj0kqsukukcnjp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:03:43 -0700, in alt.atheism

> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> >> <Jason-0306072003430001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >> >In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >> >> >

> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >> >> >In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism

> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >> >> >> >In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>,

Free Lunch

> >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism

> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >> >> >> >> >In article

> >> >> ><1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >> >> >> >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >> ...

> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here

> >can refute

> >> >> >> >> >> >> creationist "arguments"?

> >> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hint: we are not all university professors here.

> >> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin

> >> >> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> >> >Martin,

> >> >> >> >> >> >It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's

> >degree is not

> >> >> >> >> >> >related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or

> >> >anyone else

> >> >> >> >> >> >could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K.

Ham; M.

> >> >> >Denton or

> >> >> >> >> >> >any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at

> >> >the ICR

> >> >> >> >> >> >college.

> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to

> >be wrong

> >> >> >> >> >> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact.

> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >> >You still have spelled out to me how life came about from

> >non-life.

> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you

> >worship that

> >> >> >> >> >> requires you to lie?

> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >> >One of the other members of this newsgroup told me

something like

> >> >> >this: We

> >> >> >> >> >> >know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise,

> >> >there would

> >> >> >> >> >> >not be living cells.

> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened.

> >The fact

> >> >> >> >> >> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when

> >> >you have

> >> >> >> >> >> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a

> >lot about

> >> >> >> >> >> you, none of it good.

> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> >How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical

> >reactions come

> >> >> >> >to be?

> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry.

> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how

> >chemical

> >> >> >> >> reactions work?

> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the

> >experiments,

> >> >> >> >we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals

came to be?

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free

> >> >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in

the past.

> >> >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these

> >> >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process.

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already

> >know that

> >> >> >> >chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I

> >am asking

> >> >> >> >you how those chemcials came to be?

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than

> >> >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion.

> >> >> >

> >> >> >How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You

> >> >> >mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I

was taught

> >> >> >that steller refers to a star or stars.

> >> >>

> >> >> Yes, all atoms more complex than hydrogen arose as a result of fusion

> >> >> within stars.

> >> >

> >> >How did the stars come to be?

> >> >

> >> The beginning of the universe as we know it is a cosmic expansion called

> >> the Big Bang. The name was originally offered to mock the hypothesis,

> >> but the name stuck and the opponent who was doing the mocking has turned

> >> out to be wrong.

> >

> >How large was the mass that exploded?

>

> It wasn't an explosion.

How big was the mass that expanded?

June 4, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <d5076317avbqq57vlf3n32jnickcksogql@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:08:36 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>> I have never researched the

>>> life of Steven J. Gould. I seem to recall reading an article in the ICR

>>> newsletter about Mr. Gould.

>> They probably distorted something about him. Nothing he ever said had

>> anything to do with creationism. Except the occasional snort.

>

> I seem to recall that he was mentioned because he refused to debate Dr.

> Gish. I believe the reason was because he was afraid that he might lose

> the debate but his reason was that he did not want to do anything to

> promote creation science.

>

He's right not to because creationists do not debate fairly in open

forums. They pack the hall with their own vociferous supporters, they

produce outrageous lies that preclude response in the time available,

they distort science so that the person debating them has to take all

their time explaining how they are wrong. It's just not worth it. The

creationists will be in court or some other forum at some point, and

it's best to debate on genuinely neutral ground.

IOW they are dishonest, they fight dirty, and they will use the forum to

assert credibility that they lack. Best to keep them in the shadows and

under rocks where they belong.

June 4, 2007

In article <430763l5q2bv9ph02ohaeqiie0lsu5dpm2@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:54:29 -0700, in alt.atheism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-0306072054300001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <c0v663dqru7lneknljlql8e23mfobtllal@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:37:26 -0700, in alt.atheism

> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> <Jason-0306072037260001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >In article <f3vsqa$4ud$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> >> ><tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> Jason wrote:

> >> >> > In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9koum@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >> >> >

> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:16:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> >> >> <Jason-0306071916490001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >> >>> In article <fjn6631mv5qk50a9fgnms26tnndi53mikj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> >> >> >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >> >> >>>

> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:30:19 -0700, in alt.atheism

> >> >> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> >> >>>> <Jason-0306071830200001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >> >>>>> In article <khm663l8r4e98gh1pcrgcm87mpf4tdp6pa@4ax.com>,

Free Lunch

> >> >> >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >> >> >>>>>

> >> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, in alt.atheism

> >> >> >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> >> >>>>>> <Jason-0306071754470001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >> >>>>>>> In article

> >> >> > <1180913480.690671.61410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >> >> >>>>>>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> >> >>>>>> ...

> >> >> >>>>>>

> >> >> >>>>>>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here

can refute

> >> >> >>>>>>>> creationist "arguments"?

> >> >> >>>>>>>>

> >> >> >>>>>>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here.

> >> >> >>>>>>>>

> >> >> >>>>>>>> Martin

> >> >> >>>>>>> Martin,

> >> >> >>>>>>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. My master's

degree is not

> >> >> >>>>>>> related to biology or a related field. I doubt that you or

> >anyone else

> >> >> >>>>>>> could easily refute the arguments of Dr. D.T. Gish; K. Ham; M.

> >> >> > Denton or

> >> >> >>>>>>> any of the staff members that have Ph.D degrees that teach at

> >the ICR

> >> >> >>>>>>> college.

> >> >> >>>>>> The arguments of the anti-science creationists were shown to

> >be wrong

> >> >> >>>>>> decades, even centuries ago. You refuse to accept that fact.

> >> >> >>>>>>

> >> >> >>>>>>> You still have spelled out to me how life came about from

> >non-life.

> >> >> >>>>>> You know you are being dishonest here. What god do you

worship that

> >> >> >>>>>> requires you to lie?

> >> >> >>>>>>

> >> >> >>>>>>> One of the other members of this newsgroup told me

something like

> >> >> > this: We

> >> >> >>>>>>> know that living cells came about from non-life, otherwise,

> >> >there would

> >> >> >>>>>>> not be living cells.

> >> >> >>>>>> Natural chemical reactions allow all of it to have happened.

> >The fact

> >> >> >>>>>> that we cannot spell out every step to your satisfaction when

> >you have

> >> >> >>>>>> admitted that you don't even understand the problems says a

> >lot about

> >> >> >>>>>> you, none of it good.

> >> >> >>>>>>

> >> >> >>>>> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical

> >reactions come

> >> >> >>> to be?

> >> >> >>>> I cannot explain it to you until you take Junior High Chemistry.

> >> >> >>>>

> >> >> >>>> Are you really so ignorant of science that you have no idea how

> >chemical

> >> >> >>>> reactions work?

> >> >> >>> I know how chemical reactions work. However, when we done the

> >experiments,

> >> >> >>> we already had the chemicals. I am asking how the chemicals

came to be?

> >> >> >> _All_ chemicals are a result of prior chemical processes. Even a free

> >> >> >> oxygen molecule has been part of many different molecules in

the past.

> >> >> >> All of the chemical reactions that freed and bound atoms into these

> >> >> >> molecules was part of a well-understood process.

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >>> Since you have taken at least one chemistry class, you already

> >know that

> >> >> >>> chemicals are needed before a chemical reaction to take place. I

> >am asking

> >> >> >>> you how those chemcials came to be?

> >> >> >> Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than

> >> >> >> hydrogen come from stellar fusion.

> >> >> >

> >> >> > How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You

> >> >> > mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I

was taught

> >> >> > that steller refers to a star or stars.

> >> >> >

> >> >>

> >> >> Ok. You know in the beginning you had hydrogen. One Proton, one

> >> >> electron. Basically. To get atoms of higher weight, you have to have

> >> >> fusion. Atoms "melting" together. You need lots of heat and lots of

> >> >> pressure for that. Inside a star, for example.

> >> >>

> >> >> Star then blows apart after the hydrogen is burned up and the mass gets

> >> >> too big (depends on starting mass), you get a nova. Current theory is

> >> >> that the solar system then formed from the debris of one such nova

(IIRC).

> >> >>

> >> >> Tokay

> >> >

> >> >This is getting interesting. I should have kept my chemistry text book.

> >> >How did those stars come to be?

> >> >

> >> You'll have to learn that from physics, astronomy or cosmology

> >> textbooks.

> >

> >Someone else stated that the Big Bang played a role related to the

> >chemical reactions that you mentioned, would you agree?

> >

> You misread what was written. Physics and chemistry are views of nature

> at two different layers of abstraction.

That is helpful to know but we need to move to the next level. Is the Big

Bang the next level that you had in mind?

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 9:17 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1180914462.863805.266...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Jun 4, 3:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > These are some of the differences:

> > > the use of fire

>

> > People have to cook their food. Animals don't.

>

> > > burying the dead

>

> > So? My cat can use a litter box.

>

> > > the ability to communicate by talking

>

> > Parrots can communicate by talking.

>

> > > differences in DNA

>

> > Humans and gorillas are 97% identical.

>

> > > differences in IQ

>

> > No difference between you and a chimpanzee as far as I can tell.

>

> > > the ability to worship

>

> > This implies that animals are more intelligent than most humans.

> funny

I'm happy to entertain you, but I am actually trying to entertain

you. Your lack of education is sad and not funny at all.

Here's a link I found to Alex, the communicating parrot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

"Alex is an African grey parrot. Since 1977 he has been the subject of

a running experiment under animal psychologist Irene Pepperberg,

initially at the University of Arizona and currently at Brandeis

University.

"Alex had a vocabulary of around 100 words as of 2000, but is

exceptional in that he appears to have understanding of what he says.

For example, when Alex is shown an object and is asked about its

shape, color, or material, he can label it correctly. If asked the

difference between two objects, he will also answer that, but if there

is no difference between the objects, he will say "none." When he is

tired of being tested, he will say "I'm gonna go away, " and if the

researcher displays annoyance, Alex tries to defuse it with the

phrase, "I'm sorry." If he says "Wanna banana", but is offered a nut

instead, he will stare in silence, ask for the banana again, or take

the nut and throw it at the researcher. When asked how many objects of

a particular color or a particular material are on a tray, he gives

the correct answer approximately 80% of the time.

"Preliminary research also seems to indicate that Alex can carry over

the concept of four blue balls of wool on a tray to four notes from a

piano. Intriguingly, Dr. Pepperberg is also training him to recognize

the Arabic numeral "4" as "four."

"As of July 2005, Pepperberg reports that Alex has the concept of

zero.

"The name Alex is actually an acronym, A.L.EX., standing for Avian

Learning EXperiment."

Martin

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 9:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <5ch3c3F2tu10...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

>

> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:

> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in

>

> > sni

>

> > > They actually teach withcraft classes at Columbia. Here is the proof:

>

> > Wrong - It's a history class - It's not a class on how to do witchcraft.

>

> Would you have any problems with state colleges that taught classes

> related to the history of creation science?

Not as long as it was part of a mythology course or a course on

comparativee religion (which is the same thing).

Martin

June 4, 2007

In article <kmv663d7fglv8sqnn244bpj6jr33rl7gfg@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:45:01 -0700, in alt.atheism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-0306072045010001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <7cu663pl9fvark7chq9juck6erljt1dgs5@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:19:08 -0700, in alt.atheism

> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> <Jason-0306072019080001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >In article <h5o6631oms0mnhgkn628bpjpisapgbkrck@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> >

> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

> >> >>

> >> >> >In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo0mb@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> >> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> >> >

> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvughk@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> >> >> >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years

ago and was

> >> >> >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was,

"Evolution: The

> >> >> >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled,

"Evolution: The

> >> >> >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish

> >discusses the

> >> >> >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It

> >would be

> >> >> >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to

> >> >develop a two

> >> >> >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter

> >> >from our

> >> >> >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of

> >> >> >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook

> >> >did not

> >> >> >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book.

> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is

"Creation:

> >> >> >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this?

> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether

> >or not

> >> >> >> >Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence?

> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> I am asserting that we need a book that presents solid fossil

> >> >> >> evidence FOR creation. Because you are the defender of Gish's book,

> >> >> >> you should be able to show this.

> >> >> >

> >> >> >Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295

> >> >> >pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you

want to

> >> >> >read the books, here are the titles:

> >> >> >

> >> >> >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

> >> >> >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish

> >> >> >

> >> >> I don't think you get my point. THe way science works, the

> >> >> creationists have a positive obligation to show that the fossil record

> >> >> confirms creationism. How can I say that more directly?

> >> >

> >> >You are saying it very well. I no longer have a copy of Dr. Gish's book

> >> >and can not provide you with the answers that you are seeking. If you want

> >> >to read about the fossil evidence that supports creationism, you will have

> >> >to read either of the books mentioned above. Another option would be to

> >> >visit the ICR website and type "fossil" or "fossil evidence" into their

> >> >search engine.

> >>

> >> Once again, you are assuming a fact that is not so. Gish and Lubenow did

> >> not offer any evidence for creation in their books.

> >

> >Do you believe the two books are filled with lies and false information?

> >

> The evidence says they are.

I disagree. There are at least 90 people that have Ph.D degrees that

agreed to have their stories included in two different books that were

published by ICR. I doubt that they would want their stories in those two

books if they believed that the fossil evidence in the two books mentioned

above was false information.

June 4, 2007

In article <f907631kjscu2m3srk4he74q2juo6uv7ch@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:00:11 -0700, in alt.atheism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-0306072100120001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >In article <igv663ta5p30ec3uvffhi272aess74bsav@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> >

> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:49:23 -0700, in alt.atheism

> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> >> <Jason-0306072049230001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> >> >In article <1ku6635spp82qiemt78pub3nggdc1crln7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> ...

>

> >> >> Find a basic chemistry textbook and start learning about it.

> >> >

> >> >Are you stating that you don't know the answers my questions?

> >> >

> >> No, I'm stating that you have demonstrated enough bad faith in this

> >> discussion that I am no longer willing to answer your unending questions

> >> when you show no willingness to learn from any of it.

> >>

> >> You want to believe the lies that the ICR tells you. Go ahead. I cannot

> >> stop you. It would be nice if you stopped telling those lies to other

> >> people, though.

> >

> >Be honest--do you or don't you know the answer to my last question--I will

> >give you a hint--it involved a big explosion.

>

> I have no idea what you think you are talking about. Certainly you

> cannot be talking about the Big Bang, since it was not an explosion.

> You'll have to do better with your silly game.

You are correct--it was similar to an explosion but was actually a big

expansion. Was that the next step that you had in mind?

June 4, 2007

In article <d5076317avbqq57vlf3n32jnickcksogql@4ax.com>, Al Klein

<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:08:36 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> >I have never researched the

> >life of Steven J. Gould. I seem to recall reading an article in the ICR

> >newsletter about Mr. Gould.

>

> They probably distorted something about him. Nothing he ever said had

> anything to do with creationism. Except the occasional snort.

I seem to recall that he was mentioned because he refused to debate Dr.

Gish. I believe the reason was because he was afraid that he might lose

the debate but his reason was that he did not want to do anything to

promote creation science.

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 9:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> How did the chemicals that were involved in the chemical reactions come to be?

Here's some more links. (I can't be bothered to go back and poost

that stuff I've posted twelve times already.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_Eukaryogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

That's easily hundreds of pages of evidence and explanations right

there.

Martin

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 9:34 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <KLI8i.18084$px2.10...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

>

> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> >news:Jason-0306071607170001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > > In article <RoF8i.15298$JQ3.14...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> > >>news:Jason-0306071236540001@66-52-22-79.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > >> > In article <1180864433.482133.263...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> > >> > Martin

> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > >> >> On Jun 3, 9:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > >> >> > In article <f3t1f1$i75$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>

> > >> >> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> > >> >> > > Jason wrote:

> > >> >> > > > In article <f3rg71$rer$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> > >> >> > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

>

> > >> >> > > >> Jason wrote:

> > >> >> > > >>> In article <s9j163tfd53h20c63pfengglsdqakrb...@4ax.com>, Free

> > >> >> > > >>> Lunch

> > >> >> > > >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >> >> > > >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:29:51 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > >> >> > > >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > >> >> > > >>>> <Jason-0106071829510...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >> >> > > >>>>> In article <bqc163pt6i3gfpq0oi8u9lp5rr85pmd...@4ax.com>,

> > >> >> > > >>>>> Free

> > >> >> > > >>>>> Lunch

> > >> >> > > >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >> >> > > >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:01:10 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > >> >> > > >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > >> >> > > >>>>>> <Jason-0106071801100...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> In article <i9c163t9qp9l8uhdkc3a0mmiahrdffg...@4ax.com>,

> > >> > Free Lunch

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:35:24 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>

> <Jason-0106071735240...@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> In article

> > >> > <1180735061.142997.73...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> ...

>

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Except those who are educated and are not idiots.

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Visit a large city zoo and you will notice that they

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> keep

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the

> > >> >> > apes and

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> monkeys in cages. When I visited the San Diego Zoo, they

> > >> > kept the

> > >> >> > > >>> gorilla

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> in a facility that made it impossible for him to escape

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> or

> > >> >> > throw fecal

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> material at the crowd. Perhaps God should have created

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> and

> > >> > designed

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> monkeys and apes to be vastly different than humans so

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> as

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> not to

> > >> >> > > >>> confuse

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the advocates of evolution.

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Jason

>

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> What does California keep in the cages at San Quentin?

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> People that do not obey the laws. Do wild monkeys and

> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> gorillas

> > >> >> > use fire?

> > >> >> > > >>>>>> Does your entire theology rely on the fact that humans

> > >> > learned to tame

> > >> >> > > >>>>>> fire and other animals did not?

>

> > >> >> > > >>>>>> Wow....

> > >> >> > > >>>>> No--I was only pointed out one of the major difference

> > >> >> > > >>>>> between

> > >> >> > mankind and

> > >> >> > > >>>>> animals.

> > >> >> > > >>>> It's a trivial behavioral difference.

>

> > >> >> > > >>>>> I also pointed out in another post that mankind worships God

> > >> >> > > >>>>> and

> > >> >> > > >>>>> that animals do not worship God. Of course, not all humans

> > >> > worship God.

> > >> >> > > >>>> Another trivial difference.

> > >> >> > > >>> Another major difference:

> > >> >> > > >>> IQ levels--much lower than normal people.

>

> > >> >> > > >>> also: Animals can not have conversations with people by

> > >> >> > > >>> talking.

>

> > >> >> > > >> Actually, they can. You should really start reading some

> > >> >> > > >> scientific

> > >> >> > > >> stuff. They taught some bonobos to use a kind of sign language.

> > >> >> > > >> So

> > >> >> > > >> they

> > >> >> > > >> can't "talk" by language. But conversation is not limited to

> > >> >> > > >> sound.

> > >> >> > > >> What was your point again?

>

> > >> >> > > >> Tokay

>

> > >> >> > > > My point is that they can not have converations with people BY

> > >> >> > > > TALKING.

>

> > >> >> > > I hope you do not fix this on language. Language, i.e. sounds. We

> > >> >> > > are

> > >> >> > > communicating by internet. No sound?

>

> > >> >> > > > Of course, they can communicate. One lady had a bird feeder

> > >> >> > > > outside

> > >> >> > her window.

> > >> >> > > > When the bird feeder became empty, the birds would peck on her

> > >> >> > > > window to

> > >> >> > > > let her know that she needed to refill the bird feeder. After

> > >> >> > > > she

> > >> > refilled

> > >> >> > > > the feeder, the birds would stop pecking on her window. Dogs let

> > >> >> > > > their

> > >> >> > > > owners know when they are hungry. Yes, apes can use sign

> > >> >> > > > language.

> > >> > Do you

> > >> >> > > > think that an ape would be able to win a chess game with a 12

> > >> >> > > > year

> > >> >> > > > old

> > >> >> > > > child?

>

> > >> >> > > Hardly. But that is not the question.

>

> > >> >> > > Do you think that an ape would be able to figure out the

> > >> >> > > solution

> > >> >> > > > to an algebra problem? One of the other differences is a low IQ.

> > >> >> > > > jason

>

> > >> >> > > Ah, so the difference is one of IQ?

>

> > >> >> > > You are on very thin ice, let me tell you.....

>

> > >> >> > I have provided three separate reasons.

>

> > >> >> The point is, Jason, that your IQ is hardly that much more than that

> > >> >> of an ape, based on what you've posted here. I'm sure an ape could

> > >> >> also learn to cut and paste, especially if there was no requirement

> > >> >> for him to understand what he was cutting and pasting.

>

> > >> >> You really do need to have things spelled out for you, don't you?

>

> > >> >> Martin

>

> > >> > Martin,

> > >> > You have told me that life evolved from non-life. Yes, spell it out for

> > >> > me. Explain how life evolved from non-life.

> > >> > Jason

>

> > >> It's really simple Jason, once the earth was uninhabitable. Now there is

> > >> life. Life doesn't 'evolve' from non-life. Life can begin from non-life.

> > >> Regardless of how life started, evolution now directs the distribution

> > >> and

> > >> diversity of life on earth.

>

> > > Spell it out, explain how life can begin from non-life.

>

> > I can't Jason and don't claim that I can, I can only tell you how it

> > developed. If you wish to claim that your god started life that is your

> > privilege.

>

> Thanks for being honest.

We know how it CAN begin. We are interested in exactly how it DID

begin. We know that no god was involved just as no god is involved in

chemical and biological processes that take place today. No amount of

prayer will change the results of a scientific experiment.

Martin

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 9:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <tom6639bkk4hjo12q8jh6vc9m8husi9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:14:46 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > <Jason-0306071814470...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >In article <r3l663975kb3elm88j7muavkj3a6hoo...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> > ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>

> > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>

> > >> >In article <p0h663p20161j3rhibqd0k9psf10vvu...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

> > >> ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>

> > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>

> > >> >> >Dr. D.T. Gish wrote a book that was published many years ago and was

> > >> >> >revised in 1995. The title of the original book was, "Evolution: The

> > >> >> >Fossils Say No" and the revised version is entitled, "Evolution: The

> > >> >> >Fossils Still Say No". The book has 391 pages. Dr. Gish discusses the

> > >> >> >fossil evidence and the basic concepts of creation science. It would be

> > >> >> >easy for a professor to use that book and related books to

> develop a two

> > >> >> >hour lecture. My college biology professor could use one chapter

> from our

> > >> >> >college text book to develop a two hour lecture. The advocates of

> > >> >> >Intelligent Design developed an entire textbook and the textbook

> did not

> > >> >> >mention God or any scriptures. I did read Dr. Gish's book.

>

> > >> >> But in order to support his alternative, what is needed is "Creation:

> > >> >> The Fossils Say Yes". Why don't you see this?

>

> > >> >Have you read Dr. Gish's book? If not, how would you know whether or not

> > >> >Dr. Gish is telling the truth about the fossil evidence?

>

> > >> I am asserting that we need a book that presents solid fossil

> > >> evidence FOR creation. Because you are the defender of Gish's book,

> > >> you should be able to show this.

>

> > >Dr. Gish's fossil book has 391 pages. M. Lubenow's fossil book has 295

> > >pages. I am NOT going to attempt to summarize those books. If you want to

> > >read the books, here are the titles:

>

> > >"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

> > >"Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish

>

> > Neither of them provide a shred of evidence that creation happened.

>

> Did you read those two books? If not, how would you know?

How would YOU know? What expertise do you have?

Martin

June 4, 2007

On Jun 4, 9:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <i7m663dr6bvkmmq9qdt8h7gfrbl2q1c...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:21:29 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > <Jason-0306071721290...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: